this so called christian says this"Religion is the WORST thing that has ever happened to this world; Countless Billions of souls have been doomed to hell by false religion. Learn what the Bible has to say on the matter. We expose many false religions...not to be unkind...but because the truth has been hidden from the world's masses. "http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/accepting_other_religions.htm

Blah, Blah, Blah....Just more anti-Orthodox propaganda. Guys if this site is run by who I think it is, most people take what they say with a grain of salt. I believe the site is run by an Independent Fundamental Baptist group. The IFB's are very extreme (I know, as I was one of them). They believe that the KJV is the only true Bible and all others are Perversions from Hell. They think they are the only ones going to heaven (heck, when I converted to them from the Southern Baptist Church, I had to be rebaptized...), They hate alcohol, smoking, Contemporary Christian Music, any music that is not Baptist Hymns. These guys aren't to be taken seriously. They are a small fringe group who have some very weird ideas.

Logged

At His Feet The Six-Winged Seraph, Cherubim, With Sleepless Eye, Veil Their Faces To His Presence As With Ceasless Voice They Cry:Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Lord Most High! --From the Liturgy of St. James (Translated by Gerard Moultrie)

I visited their webby. Uggh. They call our Patriarchs "popes," our Holy Icons "idols," and seem to have pics of a "skull-and-bones" on some of our Crosses. The position of the "skull-and-bones" thingies, however, seem to be beneath Christ's Feet, thus signifying (to me, anyway) "trampling down Death by death." Also, I must confess, the "pyramid-on-iconostasis" photo seems a little strange to me: could it be a retouched photo? Maybe we should get a lawyer...

I visited their webby. Uggh. They call our Patriarchs "popes," our Holy Icons "idols," and seem to have pics of a "skull-and-bones" on some of our Crosses. The position of the "skull-and-bones" thingies, however, seem to be beneath Christ's Feet, thus signifying (to me, anyway) "trampling down Death by death." Also, I must confess, the "pyramid-on-iconostasis" photo seems a little strange to me: could it be a retouched photo? Maybe we should get a lawyer...

Don't the skull and bones signify "Golgath", or the "The Place of Skull" as mentioned in Scripture?

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Not sure about that pyramid thing, but in Greece, an iconostasis isn't considered complete with the All-seeing Eye of God above the Royal Doors.

Of course, the Protestant know-nothings won't be moved by rational explanations.

What? An 'all-seeing eye' in an Orthodox Church?!? Really?

Can you show us a photo of such a thing?

That symbol is Masonic/Kabbalistic. Freemasonry has been condemned by Orthodoxy.

In my opinion, a Masonic 'all-seeing eye' has no place in an Orthodox Church... let alone on the iconostasis!

Searching for images is difficult considering all the know-nothings who are all convinced that the Great Seal is full of masonic imagery in spite of all evidence to the contrary. But even masonic sources say that they got it from the seal. From what I gather it's a very common symbol in central European churches. It is generally shown in a triangle, of course, as a symbol of the Trinity.

If it is uncommon in Orthodox iconography, that would perhaps be due to resistance to use of allegorical figures (e.g. the Lamb of God is extremely common in the west and hardly seen in the east).

What? An 'all-seeing eye' in an Orthodox Church?!? Really?Can you show us a photo of such a thing? That symbol is Masonic/Kabbalistic. Freemasonry has been condemned by Orthodoxy.In my opinion, a Masonic 'all-seeing eye' has no place in an Orthodox Church... let alone on the iconostasis!

Perhaps a bit quick to condemn an accepted symbol of Orthodoxy? Apart from the websites listed above, I have seen an all-seeing eye on an iconostasis as well.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

Freemasonry claims the All-seeing Eye in a triangle goes back to the Eye of Horus, which may well be; the symbol is very ancient, and used in a variety of religions. Protestants of a certain ilk claim that it is occult. What is certain is that the symbol predates the emergence of organized Freemasonry by several centuries. The question, then, is about the validity of the claim.

There are Protestants of a certain ilk who will claim that anything used by occult groups, regardless of its origin, is ever thereafter tainted, and not to be used by Christians. Their claim that Orthodoxy is nothing but warmed-over Paganism goes right back to--ready for this one?--Adolf von Harnack! Yeah, the father of modern higher Biblical criticism! They wouldn't be caught dead citing Harnack for anything else but that!

Logged

The end of the world is as near as the day of your death;watch and pray.

What? An 'all-seeing eye' in an Orthodox Church?!? Really?Can you show us a photo of such a thing? That symbol is Masonic/Kabbalistic. Freemasonry has been condemned by Orthodoxy.In my opinion, a Masonic 'all-seeing eye' has no place in an Orthodox Church... let alone on the iconostasis!

Perhaps a bit quick to condemn an accepted symbol of Orthodoxy? Apart from the websites listed above, I have seen an all-seeing eye on an iconostasis as well.

Let's not forget that the "all-seeing eye" is not only depicted in Orthodox churches, but is also present in prayer. The final priest's prayer of the Matins (at the bowing of heads):

Behold, the eyes of the LORD are on those who fear Him, On those who hope in His mercy

« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 09:19:05 PM by Fr. George »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

If it is uncommon in Orthodox iconography, that would perhaps be due to resistance to use of allegorical figures (e.g. the Lamb of God is extremely common in the west and hardly seen in the east).

The major resistance is to allegorical figures of Christ, versus depictions of Him as a man. The lamb is out, but depicting Him carrying a lamb is ok (even though it likely never happened). Depicting the Trinity as the Ancient of Days, Christ, and the dove is (at least at present) out, while the hospitality of Abraham is in - clearly symbolic, since (a) we don't believe that the Father became incarnate in any form, and (b) since only 1 of the angels was called "Lord."

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Freemasonry claims the All-seeing Eye in a triangle goes back to the Eye of Horus, which may well be; the symbol is very ancient, and used in a variety of religions. Protestants of a certain ilk claim that it is occult. What is certain is that the symbol predates the emergence of organized Freemasonry by several centuries.

I have yet to see a freemasonry site claim this; what I find is a lot of other people claiming that they say this, and I have found freemasons who flatly state that freemasonry's use comes from the Great Seal, period.

The eye of Horus does not appear in a triangle or for that matter in any other shape; it sometimes appears as the eye of other deities, and it is also identified with/as the goddess Wadjet. One sees pendants in which the eye is framed by a vulture and a cobra (symbolizing the union of the two Egypts, but the cobra in this context also represents Wadjet-- if you want a perfectly systematic religion, Egypt is not the place to go) and the whole thing may then rest on a bar shape, but I didn't find any ancient example involving a triangle.

Every old example with the eye in a triangle that I've seen is emphatically Christian.

I visited their webby. Uggh. They call our Patriarchs "popes," our Holy Icons "idols," and seem to have pics of a "skull-and-bones" on some of our Crosses. The position of the "skull-and-bones" thingies, however, seem to be beneath Christ's Feet, thus signifying (to me, anyway) "trampling down Death by death." Also, I must confess, the "pyramid-on-iconostasis" photo seems a little strange to me: could it be a retouched photo? Maybe we should get a lawyer...

Don't the skull and bones signify "Golgath", or the "The Place of Skull" as mentioned in Scripture?

According to some early fathers, there was a Jewish legend that Noah buried Adam's skull next to Zion, and hence the place was called "Place of the Skull." This is the skull that is depicted in the icon, and the Lord's blood is dripping down from the cross and purifying it.

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

lolwut? They boldly proclaim "The Greek Eastern Orthodox Religion is straight out of the pits of hell. They teach that performing the seven sacraments are absolutely essential to go to heaven. This is the same damnable heresy which Roman Catholicism teaches."

Then dont even go into detail as to why? Surely they dont think that b/c we believe in the sacraments we are going to hell.

lolwut? They boldly proclaim "The Greek Eastern Orthodox Religion is straight out of the pits of hell. They teach that performing the seven sacraments are absolutely essential to go to heaven. This is the same damnable heresy which Roman Catholicism teaches."

Then dont even go into detail as to why? Surely they dont think that b/c we believe in the sacraments we are going to hell.

Yes, they do think that. To them, anything that's like Roman Catholicism in any way, shape, or form, is the Devil's lie--never mind the considerable theological distinctions between East and West, which fly right over their heads.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 07:42:55 PM by Cymbyz »

Logged

The end of the world is as near as the day of your death;watch and pray.

lolwut? They boldly proclaim "The Greek Eastern Orthodox Religion is straight out of the pits of hell. They teach that performing the seven sacraments are absolutely essential to go to heaven. This is the same damnable heresy which Roman Catholicism teaches."

Then dont even go into detail as to why? Surely they dont think that b/c we believe in the sacraments we are going to hell.

Yes, they do think that. To them, anything that's like Roman Catholicism in any way, shape, or form, is the Devil's lie--never mind the considerable theological distinctions between East and West, which fly right over their heads.

That is retarded. This guy says that the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus. *Ask him to save you*. I know personally I say the Jesus prayer something like 50 times in a day sometimes. So how is doing something extra like the sacraments going to send you to hell?

this so called christian says this"Religion is the WORST thing that has ever happened to this world; Countless Billions of souls have been doomed to hell by false religion. Learn what the Bible has to say on the matter. We expose many false religions...not to be unkind...but because the truth has been hidden from the world's masses. "http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/accepting_other_religions.htm

Someone need to inform him.

I've heard of "drive-by shootings",I guess you call this one "drive-by apologetics"!!!

I wonder what he'd say if we pointed out that the sacraments (Eucharist, baptism, etc.) are in the life of Christ as well. I always have to scratch my head as to why so-called 'Bible-believers' have a problem with the sacraments-- we are just living out the life of Christ.

Logged

He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

Depicting the Trinity as the Ancient of Days, Christ, and the dove is (at least at present) out,

In all the churches which I know personally, Serbian, Russian, Greek and Romanian, the Old Testament Trinity is IN. It is in all their churches, on the walls as a fresco, on panel icons, on the iconostasia, etc....

Here is a very nice one in the heartland of the Russian Orthodox Church in America - the monastery of Jordanville (the stand on the right.)

This is so funny when protestants claim this! Their religion is created by Martin Luther, and the two pillars of protestantism, sola fide and sola scriptura are invented and were never believed before the 16th century. Anyone remember what happened to Korah in Num 16 when he rebelled against Moses and Aaron saying that all are holy in the congregation, meaning there is no difference between a priest and the congregation? God killed him. Oddly enough Martin Luther states the same thing! Protestants are screwy people, they invent their religion and attack everyone else. There are over 40,000 denominations, all conflicted in their beliefs and yet we are supposed to believe they are right.

Protestantism is heresy. The sacraments are in scripture, and the belief that the bible is sole authority, is not. In fact Christ states that: "you search the scripture, for in them you think you have eternal life." Mt. 5:39

The sacraments are in scripture, and the belief that the bible is sole authority, is not. In fact Christ states that: "you search the scripture, for in them you think you have eternal life." Mt. 5:39

I did not remember any passage like this on the Sermon on the Mount, so I checked. It's actually Jn. 5:39, not Matt. 5:39. Now that (a mixed up address) in itself is no big deal. What I take issue with is your taking that verse out of context, to the point that you dishonestly chopped off the end of the 39th verse (even adding a period after "life" in your post!), which changes the tone of the passage:

38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

The point of the passage is that it's a good thing to search the Scriptures and think that they have life in them, at least insofar as they point to Jesus Christ and reveal the will of God. This is made clear by many of the (by my count) twenty-four other references to Scripture in the Gospels. These include such passages as:

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" (Matt. 21:42)

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Lk. 24:27)

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (Jn. 7:38)

Here are the other passages... and not a single one supports your claim. In fact, I'm not quite sure that I understand how you thought Jn. 5:39 supported your claim. It doesn't say anything about the folly of making a single source of information your only authority. Now if you had invoked 2 Thes. 2:15, that'd be a different story.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 12:28:53 PM by Asteriktos »

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

Surely they dont think that b/c we believe in the sacraments we are going to hell.

Yes, they do think that.

I have no desire to defend their website, nor what they write, nor the manner in which they write it. But I suspect they think you are going to hell not because you believe in the sacraments, but because (as they assume) you trust in them for salvation, and not in Christ himself. And I dare say there are plenty of nominal Orthodox, as there are plenty of Baptists, who do exactly that without "suffering the faith" for themselves. You would probably find that these Baptists - if such they are - say exactly the same things about people who, they believe, trust in their baptism and membership in a Baptist church, and not in Christ himself. That there are plenty of such Baptists, I have little doubt, and I probably preach to them in similar vein, though not, perhaps, in the style of the quoted website.

They also have a problem with your having more than the two sacraments you share in common with us (despite our different interpretations of them).

And finally, I think they are using the word religion in a special sense, to mean religiosity, or religious acts devoid of inner spiriual life - "having the form of religion but denying the power thereof." This use of the term is quite common among Evangelicals, who say we have not religion, but life. It is part of the Evangelical dialect.

I am not defending or opposing what they say - I'm only trying to translate it into terms in which you might at least better understand what they are trying to say. I have no wish either to read or to comment on the website itself.

And - if I may so - some of the above posts are no less bathed in divine grace than the website they refer to!

« Last Edit: October 10, 2010, 03:44:22 PM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Surely they dont think that b/c we believe in the sacraments we are going to hell.

Yes, they do think that.

I have no desire to defend their website, nor what they write, nor the manner in which they write it. But I suspect they think you are going to hell not because you believe in the sacraments, but because (as they assume) you trust in them for salvation, and not in Christ himself. And I dare say there are plenty of nominal Orthodox, as there are plenty of Baptists, who do exactly that without "suffering the faith" for themselves. You would probably find that these Baptists - if such they are - say exactly the same things about people who, they believe, trust in their baptism and membership in a Baptist church, and not in Christ himself. That there are plenty of such Baptists, I have little doubt, and I probably preach to them in similar vein, though not, perhaps, in the style of the quoted website.

They also have a problem with your having more than the two sacraments you share in common with us (despite our different interpretations of them).

And finally, I think they are using the word religion in a special sense, to mean religiosity, or religious acts devoid of inner spiriual life - "having the form of religion but denying the power thereof." This use of the term is quite common among Evangelicals, who say we have not religion, but life. It is part of the Evangelical dialect.

I am not defending or opposing what they say - I'm only trying to translate it into terms in which you might at least better understand what they are trying to say. I have no wish either to read or to comment on the website itself.

And - if I may so - some of the above posts are no less bathed in divine grace than the website they refer to!

Blah, Blah, Blah....Just more anti-Orthodox propaganda. Guys if this site is run by who I think it is, most people take what they say with a grain of salt. I believe the site is run by an Independent Fundamental Baptist group. The IFB's are very extreme (I know, as I was one of them). They believe that the KJV is the only true Bible and all others are Perversions from Hell. They think they are the only ones going to heaven (heck, when I converted to them from the Southern Baptist Church, I had to be rebaptized...), They hate alcohol, smoking, Contemporary Christian Music, any music that is not Baptist Hymns. These guys aren't to be taken seriously. They are a small fringe group who have some very weird ideas.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

so the sacraments aren't an absolute necessity?

When invited to a feast, do you stick with the portions that are the bare necessities? Our God is generous in His distribution of Grace, why wouldn't we wish to partake of Him fully?

For most of us, the sacraments are indeed necessary- as necessary as more than the mere "necessities" are to any man's sanity. For a very few God grants a greater economy- the baptism they receive is baptism by blood and they participate in the Eucharist by offering up their own body and blood to the Lord. They bypass the need for clergy and confession by being elevated to the rank of martyr.

No one would say the martyr converted at the very trial of another martyr and condemned upon this new confession is not part of the Church because they did not receive a triple immersion baptism, Chrismation, Confession, and Communion before being killed. But I doubt we're in a hurry to line up to take their way.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Blah, Blah, Blah....Just more anti-Orthodox propaganda. Guys if this site is run by who I think it is, most people take what they say with a grain of salt. I believe the site is run by an Independent Fundamental Baptist group. The IFB's are very extreme (I know, as I was one of them). They believe that the KJV is the only true Bible and all others are Perversions from Hell. They think they are the only ones going to heaven (heck, when I converted to them from the Southern Baptist Church, I had to be rebaptized...), They hate alcohol, smoking, Contemporary Christian Music, any music that is not Baptist Hymns. These guys aren't to be taken seriously. They are a small fringe group who have some very weird ideas.

Do you think they should be hospitalized.? I say you betcha!

Whether you are a male or female, I might be inclined to marry you, if you make the above the template for every post you ever post here.

I love a great tag line.

This one is so brilliant I could discuss it all night (or at least for 45 minutes), but I am going back to sleep.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

so the sacraments aren't an absolute necessity?

When invited to a feast, do you stick with the portions that are the bare necessities? Our God is generous in His distribution of Grace, why wouldn't we wish to partake of Him fully?

For most of us, the sacraments are indeed necessary- as necessary as more than the mere "necessities" are to any man's sanity. For a very few God grants a greater economy- the baptism they receive is baptism by blood and they participate in the Eucharist by offering up their own body and blood to the Lord. They bypass the need for clergy and confession by being elevated to the rank of martyr.

No one would say the martyr converted at the very trial of another martyr and condemned upon this new confession is not part of the Church because they did not receive a triple immersion baptism, Chrismation, Confession, and Communion before being killed. But I doubt we're in a hurry to line up to take their way.

I agree. But I also would like to know what the absolute necessities are. is that so bad? how come no one ever talks about them too?

When you're talking about a God who can do anything, and for whom all things are possible, and who wishes all to be saved, speaking in such absolutes seems counter-productive. Rather than talking of necessities wouldn't it be better to ask what is helpful and productive in living the life in Christ? The question should not be "Can I live without the sacraments?" but rather "If they are indeed helpful and grace-full, why would I want to live without the sacraments?"

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

When you're talking about a God who can do anything, and for whom all things are possible, and who wishes all to be saved, speaking in such absolutes seems counter-productive. Rather than talking of necessities wouldn't it be better to ask what is helpful and productive in living the life in Christ? The question should not be "Can I live without the sacraments?" but rather "If they are indeed helpful and grace-full, why would I want to live without the sacraments?"

Wisdom!

Logged

"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"-Benjamin Disraeli

When you're talking about a God who can do anything, and for whom all things are possible, and who wishes all to be saved, speaking in such absolutes seems counter-productive. Rather than talking of necessities wouldn't it be better to ask what is helpful and productive in living the life in Christ? The question should not be "Can I live without the sacraments?" but rather "If they are indeed helpful and grace-full, why would I want to live without the sacraments?"

This is a great post of course and I think it points out a pernicious problem:

The conflation of philosophy and theology.

Both East and West are guilty of the above and it might be nearly impossible for some to imagine one without the other; however, a less confused world will be impossible till more people understand this radical problem and how it came to be.

But this would touch on so many aspects of Western thought (this includes the East) I doubt theology will ever be able to recover its radical appropriation of the divine rather than the conflation of the divine with being.

How are we to have theology without philosophy, going even farther, how can we have ANY knowledge without using our minds in a rationalistic manner? I don't understand the criticism against Scholasticism. All of this understanding things through our "being" or "feelings" or some other weirdo introspective stuff seems very vague to me, and even then, doesn't escape the fact that even our feelings and emotions are interpreted by the mind, therefore the mind is all we have.

When you're talking about a God who can do anything, and for whom all things are possible, and who wishes all to be saved, speaking in such absolutes seems counter-productive. Rather than talking of necessities wouldn't it be better to ask what is helpful and productive in living the life in Christ? The question should not be "Can I live without the sacraments?" but rather "If they are indeed helpful and grace-full, why would I want to live without the sacraments?"

you have a point here. I agree. But I actually need to know as much as I can about the absolute necessities. So I can shut some people's mouths. Because There have been people in my life, who have no life of their own, and they have been trying to tell me how to live mine.

How are we to have theology without philosophy, going even farther, how can we have ANY knowledge without using our minds in a rationalistic manner? I don't understand the criticism against Scholasticism. All of this understanding things through our "being" or "feelings" or some other weirdo introspective stuff seems very vague to me, and even then, doesn't escape the fact that even our feelings and emotions are interpreted by the mind, therefore the mind is all we have.

lol!!!are you me in a different dimesion?

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for your courage to express them for me. With all this criticism around. I am too scared to express all my thoughts, because I don't want more judgement than there already is.

How are we to have theology without philosophy, going even farther, how can we have ANY knowledge without using our minds in a rationalistic manner? I don't understand the criticism against Scholasticism. All of this understanding things through our "being" or "feelings" or some other weirdo introspective stuff seems very vague to me, and even then, doesn't escape the fact that even our feelings and emotions are interpreted by the mind, therefore the mind is all we have.